In the past, I've attempted to read Bible verses from a Trinitarian perspective, just to see if it seemed convincing to me when reading the Bible that way. I also tried to understand how Trinitarians think when reading Scripture. But here lately, I wonder what it would be like for a Trinitarian to read the Bible from a non-Trinitarian perspective. For example, Hebrews 9:14 (NET):
"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God."
Surely the word "God" in this verse, especially the first occurrence, does not refer to the triune God, does it? After all, Christ evidently offered himself through the holy spirit to God. Did he offer himself to himself? Surely not. Nor did he offer himself to the holy spirit, it seems.
What about 2 Corinthians 5:21?
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (NASB 1995).
To whom does the pronoun "He" refer in this passage? Looking at the context in vss. 20-21, the referent again is God. But who is the God being discussed in this account? It's the one who sent Christ and made him to be sin (i.e., a sin offering) for Christians. Did Christ send himself to be a sin offering for us?
Now lest someone try to prove that Christ is God because 2 Corinthians 5:19 when translated says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," he or she needs to look deeper into the Greek of the verse.
While Constantine R. Campbell speaks about the clear Trinitarian inference within 2 Corinthians 5:19, he still regards the preposition en (most likely) as periphrastic being that it likely occurs within the context of a verbal periphrasis. I utterly disagree with Campbell about the "clear Trinitarian inference," but think he's correct regarding God working "in" Christ, instrumentally. Garland writes:
This phrase can be construed so that it emphasizes the incarnation: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (KJV, REB). But Paul's theological agenda here does not center on affirming the incarnation. The same may be said of translating the phrase as a predicate nominative: “It was God who in Christ was reconciling the world to himself.” The option chosen by the NIV to render the phrase as an imperfect periphrastic is the most likely: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself. The “in Christ” has an instrumental force— through Christ.Garland, David. 2 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary Book 29) (Kindle Locations 5565-5569). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Finally, I would recommend that Trinitarians read 1 Peter 1:20-21 and meditate deeply on these verses. The Bible writer clearly is not using "God" there for Christ or the triune Godhead.
14 comments:
The best of the trinitarian exegetes are good at finding the economic trinity, but the issue is the move from the economic to the ontological.
I agree that it's difficult for them to make that leap, from the economic to the ontological, but most writers I've seen either assert there's an essential connection between the two or they rely on Karl Rahner's axiom that the economic and ontological Trinity are the same thing. Matthew Barrett discusses this point in Simply Trinity. Not to say that I concur, but most of these theologians/exegetes just insist on these ideas with little justification.
I wrote about the immanent (ontological) and economic Trinity here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/07/lacugna-and-immanenteconomic-trinity.html
Another gripe I have is when exegetes don't recognize that 1 John 4:8 is talking about the Father, not the Son or the holy spirit. They just need to read the context for verification of that statement.
Karl Rahner's axiom leaves one with 2 options (I have this in my God as love article), either emanationism (creation is necessary) or subordinationism (i.e. there is not ontological trinity).
I haven't read Barrett's work, but I hope to.
But I don't think the connection can be done exegetically, and I think most honest trinitarians would agree.
That's a great point about Rahner's axiom: I read your article but did not remember that specific part. But it makes sense.
I agree that the connection cannot be done exegetically and there are many statements that can be found where Trinitarians admit as much. However, too many of them think the Trinity is latent in the Bible and it's their job to show how clearly the Bible teaches the Trinity. R. Schackenburg sees the Trinity doctrine throughout the Gospel of John, and I'm convinced that he would say the Trinity is exegetically defensible and there are others like him.
I have no scientific way to demonstrate what I'm saying but it's just my impression from reading Trinitarian lit. And that includes Barrett and Millard Erickson.
Jonathon Swift famously said, "It's useless to try to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into!"
Among Unitarians who deny the Lord Jesus is God there are many passages in which they disagree as to whether or not the Father or the Son is being referred to. The Jehovah's Witnesses have gone back and forth with quite a number of them.
FR, have you some specific examples? Thanks.
There are many more from this passage, but I think even this small sample makes it obvious.
Romans 10:11
For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” (NWT)
1. November 1, 2004 "him" refers to God.
The Watchtower: The apostle Paul wrote: “None that rests his faith on [God] will be disappointed.” (Romans 10:11)
(Will We Ever Enjoy Real Security?, page 32)
2. June 15, 2011 "him" refers to Jesus.
The Watchtower: With reference to Jesus, Paul quoted Isaiah’s words: “None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” (Rom. 10:11; Isa. 28:16)
(There Is Good News That All Need, page 11)
That is a genuine change of referent but does not show that the JWs are uniquely inclined to change their readings. For example, the same verse reads differently in the New American Standard from 1995 to 2000:
[Rom 10:11 NASB95] [11] For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
[Rom 10:11 NASB20] [11] For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."
As far as I know, the NASB team is Trinitarian.
The Greek word for "shame" and "disappointed" are both accurate. Confusing their creator and creature-jesus is confusion.
What I understand your claim to be is that non-Trinitarians flipflop most about prepositions related to God or Christ, and this was very conspicuous in the case of the Romans 10:11 citation of Isaiah 28:16. I don't think you made your point with this example. In fact, much more is going on here...
In the Masoretic text, there is no complement to believes;
[Isa 28:16 KJV] [16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
So the Masoretic has "he that believes shall not make haste." Is that the accurate form? Excellent question.
The Brenton LXX has "believes shall by no means be ashamed." Is that the accurate form? Excellent question:
[Isa 28:16 BES] [16] therefore thus saith the Lord, [even] the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious [stone], for its foundations; and he that believes [on him] shall by no means be ashamed.
The Vulgate has this:
[Isa 28:16 VUL] [16] idcirco haec dicit Dominus Deus ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem lapidem probatum angularem pretiosum in fundamento fundatum qui crediderit non festinet
Which Google translate renders:
therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will lay in the foundations of Zion a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, founded on a foundation, he that believeth shall not hasten
So to what manuscript(s) is Paul appealing?:
[Rom 10:11 NASB20] [11] For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."
I suggest that he was looking at a Greek translation, not a Hebrew one, which mistranslated "hasten" as "be ashamed." That leaves the question, did Paul have a Greek translation that included the words "in him" or did he add those words, as Brenton did in his translation?
I suggest, neither. I suggest that Paul had a Greek version that read "he that believes concerning him," which is how I would read "ep autw."
So, due to the GIGO Effect, we can only cope with the confusion in the manuscripts, not eliminate it.
The "him" in Romans 10:11 is not a preposition. It is a pronoun.
The preposition is "ep" in Greek and "on" in English and it refers to (IE: the object of the preposition) is "him." IE: The form is a noun but its function in the sentence is the object of the preposition. This is one reason why I am reluctant to appeal to the underlying language... I tend to get misunderstood in two languages instead of one!
Post a Comment